martin luther king jr blvd viaduct portland
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, Portland

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 48

Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, Portland - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 56 Views
  • Uploaded on

Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, Portland. Project Background and Today’s Design Status. Location – Looking Southeast. Closer View - Looking Southeast. Historic Background - MLK. MLK (Union Ave.) built 1938 H-15 Design Live Load. Historic Background – Grand. Grand Ave. built 1964

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, Portland' - julius


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
martin luther king jr blvd viaduct portland
Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, Portland
  • Project Background and Today’s Design Status
historic background mlk
Historic Background - MLK
  • MLK (Union Ave.) built 1938
    • H-15 Design Live Load
historic background grand
Historic Background – Grand
  • Grand Ave. built 1964
    • HS-20 Design Live Load
early problems
Early Problems
  • Crosses Filled-In Slough
    • Wood Waste
  • Timber Piles Not Driven Deep Enough
  • Partial Structure Settlement
  • ACWS Added to Raise Grade
  • Jacking Attempt after cutting columns. Instead of raising the structure, it lowered the footings.
today s conditions
Today’s Conditions
  • Structure Settlement, Translation & Deterioration
  • Sufficiency Ratings
    • MLK 19, Grand Ave. 60 (out of 100)
  • SB Weight Restrictions (50,000 lb)
  • Ongoing Maintenance
stakeholder architectural goals 1
Stakeholder & Architectural Goals 1
  • Environmental Assessment & 4(f) Evaluation Process 2001-2002
  • Design Review Advisory Committee (DRAC)
  • Improved Vehicular Access
  • Improved Ped. & Bike Access
  • Traffic Calming
  • Landscaping, Planters on Structure
stakeholder architectural goals 2
Stakeholder & Architectural Goals 2
  • Access to Springwater Trail
  • Gateway to SE Portland
  • Appearance Reminiscent of Existing Structure
    • Shorter, Haunched Spans 24 m (80 ft)
    • Deck Overhangs
    • Historic Lighting Fixtures
  • Historic Interpretive Signs (in pylons)
  • Improved Ped. & Bike Access
stakeholder architectural goals 3
Stakeholder & Architectural Goals 3
  • Architectural Rails
    • Open for Outward Visibility
    • “Not like the Ross Island Bridge”
    • Must meet LRFD Strength & Performance
    • Similar to FHWA Crash-Tested Rail
    • FHWA Concurrence
  • Keep Adjacent Businesses Open
  • Cross Existing UPRR
  • Future Light Rail Transit Beneath
bridge replacement concept studies 1999 2001
Bridge Replacement Concept Studies (1999-2001)
  • Replace MLK Structure on Existing Alignment
  • Highway Standards
    • 45 mph, 3.6 m Lanes, Std. Metal Rails
  • Prestressed Concrete Girders
    • Approx. 36 m (120 ft.) Spans
new alignment alternatives
New Alignment Alternatives
  • Boulevard (35 mph) Standards
    • Grade Separated Alternative (Chosen)
    • Signalized Alternative (Not Chosen)
    • 3.3 m Lanes, 1.2 m & 1.8 m Shoulders
    • Tight Curves: Shorter Bridge, Less Skew
    • Substandard Horizontal Alignment
      • Accepted By City of Portland via IGA
      • Ownership Transfers to Portland Upon Completion
engineering solutions
Engineering Solutions
  • Replace MLK Struct., Rehab Grand
  • TS&L (Sept. 2003): Replace Grand?
    • Approx. $3 million extra
    • Best time to replace during this project
    • Wouldn’t have to remove rails, etc. later
    • But, existing structure didn’t meet criteria to replace (SR > 50)
    • Not in original scope
    • Not in the budget
stage construction challenges
Stage Construction Challenges
  • Narrow Lanes & Shld. on New Struct.
  • Restricted Right-of-Way
  • Traffic Volumes (60,000+ ADT)
  • Maintain 4 Lanes During Construction
  • Temporary Detour Structure (partial)
superstructure
Superstructure
  • Precast P/S Slab/Box Girders
    • Fits Desired Span Lengths (75’-80’)
    • Haunched for Architectural Appearance
    • Quicker to Build, No Falsework Req’d.
    • Good Structure Economy
    • Spread Boxes w/ Cast Deck
    • Has Been Done Before
  • North 3 Spans CIP P/T Box Girder
    • Flared, Curved, Skewed
span layout issues
Span Layout Issues
  • Repetitive Spans Promote Economy
  • Try To Avoid Existing Bents
  • Many Utilities, Buried and Overhead
  • Resulting Spans Weren’t Equal
foundation conditions
Foundation Conditions
  • Silt Overburden Layer
  • Seismic Settlement & Amplification
  • Use Steel H-Piles
    • Driven into Troutdale Gravel Layer
    • Approx. 15-20 m deep North & South
    • Approx. 25-30 m deep at wood waste
  • MSE Wire Retaining Walls
    • CIP Architectural Facing, After Settlement
logistical challenges during design
Logistical Challenges During Design
  • Decentralization of ODOT in 2004
  • Designers/Drafters in:
    • Region 1, Portland
    • Region 2, East Salem
    • ODOT HQ, Salem
  • Minimal Traffic Control Design Begun
  • DEA, Inc. Recruited for Traffic Control Design, Drafting, Lead Structure Design
evolving bid schedule
Evolving Bid Schedule
  • November 2005: Change of Course
    • Cost of Grand rehab approached replacement cost
    • Decision to Replace Grand Ave.
    • Split Contracts
      • March 9, 2006 bid for earthwork, drainage, utilities ($5 million)
      • Nov. 2006 bid for structure and retaining walls
innovative contracting methods
Innovative Contracting Methods
  • Complex Project with Significant Risk Elements
    • Want an experienced contractor with innovative abilities
    • Think it through ahead of time
innovative contracting cont 1
Innovative Contracting, cont. 1
  • Best Value Bid Process (A+C+D) on Structure Work
    • “A” Component: Price (40%)
    • “C” Component: Qualifications (40%)
    • “D” Component: Tech. Approach (20%)
    • Not Used: “B” Component (Time)
innovative contracting cont 2
Innovative Contracting, cont. 2
  • ODOT Experience with Best Value Contracting:
    • I-5 Interstate Bridge Lift Span Trunnion Replacement (1997)
    • St. Johns Bridge Rehabilitation (2003-05)
    • Both Were A+C
    • Procedure now in place at Office of Procurement to streamline Best Value Contracting
philosophical considerations
Philosophical Considerations
  • Budget Limitations
    • $32 million available from Bridge Program
  • Scope creep
    • Project now approx. $50 million range
  • Unfunded Stakeholder Demands
  • Awareness of Project Scope
    • Grand Ave. not part of original scope
philosophical considerations cont
Philosophical Considerations cont.
  • Context Sensitive Solutions
    • Was the original scope realistic considering the setting?
    • Old industrial area vs. redevelopment visions
    • Transportation impacts on communities
    • Cause urban blight vs. enhancement
ad